strategic-alliance-formation

Use when responding to territorial demands from a powerful adversary or deciding how to deploy contested resources. Redirects resources that would be conceded to the aggressor toward the aggressor's enemies instead, building counter-alliances that deter future demands and strengthen negotiating position.

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a concise, well-structured strategic procedure with an explicit validation checklist, but its steps stay at a high strategic level without worked examples or tactical detail, limiting actionability.

Suggestions

Add a brief worked scenario illustrating the procedure end-to-end (e.g., a state facing a territorial demand, the enemy identified, the resulting terms) to lift actionability from abstract directives to concrete guidance.

Tie the Validation checks back into the workflow as inline feedback loops (e.g., 'if the enemy lacks military capability, re-identify a stronger counterweight before offering resources').

Collapse the Expected Outcome section into the Overview or remove its redundancy with Key Reasoning to tighten conciseness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean, well-sectioned content with no padding of general knowledge; minor redundancy such as the Expected Outcome restating the deterrence rationale keeps it just below fully efficient.	4 / 5
Actionability	Steps give concrete directives ('Determine if they are attacking from strength or exhaustion', 'Find states with deep grievances') but remain at an abstract strategic level without worked examples or specific tactical mechanisms, leaving the guidance incomplete.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Six clearly sequenced steps plus an explicit three-item Validation checklist provide a clear sequence with validation present; however the validations are appended rather than inline feedback loops ('if check fails, return to step X'), so it stops short of the top anchor.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized sections (Overview, Steps, Key Reasoning, Decision Matrix, Expected Outcome, Validation), meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is well-crafted: third-person voice, explicit 'Use when' trigger, clear what-and-when, and a distinctive niche. Its only weakness is that the single-strategy framing leaves minor gaps in capability coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names several concrete actions ('Redirects resources...toward the aggressor's enemies', 'building counter-alliances', 'deter future demands', 'strengthen negotiating position') but is a focused single-strategy skill rather than comprehensive coverage, fitting the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (redirects conceded resources to the aggressor's enemies to build counter-alliances) and 'when' ('Use when responding to territorial demands from a powerful adversary or deciding how to deploy contested resources') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural trigger phrases like 'territorial demands', 'powerful adversary', and 'contested resources' give good keyword coverage; the niche diplomatic domain has few synonyms and no file extensions, so it falls just short of comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A highly distinctive niche (counter-alliance formation against territorial aggression) with specific triggers that are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, giving minimal conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: baojie/shiji-kb
Path: kg/ontology/ontology-v1/skus/procedural/skill_160/SKILL.md
Commit: 6b836e3

Reviewed: 13 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.